Take The Lane

Running your dog while on a bike is OK, sort of

Apparently, I owe an apology to all of you who run your dogs while riding your bicycles. You are not all morons. Just some of you are.

I saw a candidate for Moron of the Week on Monday (nice, hot Monday) and my partner and I had an unsatisfying exchange with him as he rode off with his pup. I decided to research the official positions on running a dog beside a bicycle before firing a blast, and found pretty mixed responses.

There are, in fact, devices you can attach to your bike (Springer, K-9 Cruiser) to run your dog. One website supported bike-running as a solution to rising pet obesity.

So, I called some animal welfare experts.

Alison Cross, of the Ontario SPCA, said some dogs should not be run beside a bike or any device that gives the human a mechanical advantage and moves faster than the dog can or should.

As well, dogs shouldn't be run in heat or when the dog itself isn't well, and some dog breeds weren't meant to be runners. Cross said the OSPCA charged and convicted a dog trainer who used inline skates to run her dog.

Kathy Innocente, of the Humane Society of Kitchener-Waterloo, agrees that the conditions of the day, and the health and breed of the dog will determine whether an owner can run it while cycling, but generally, "We wouldn't recommend it."

Both said that the right breeds of dogs can be run by bicycle on cool days, windy days and when conditions are safe (side streets, etc). Neither agency would cite a pet owner simply for running a dog while on a bicycle.

So, a partial apology. But frankly, couldn't you just take the dog to a park and throw a stick? Who wants to worry about running over your dog while riding?

Moron of the Week, #34

The Moron of the Week surely has to be Dan Maes, one of the Republican candidates for governor of Colorado, who, according to the Denver Post, equates cycling with internationalism and the loss of personal freedom.

That's right folks, Maes says that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is taking the state capital down the road to servitude to a new world order dictated by foreign powers.

What he actually said was this, according to Christopher Osher of the Denver Post:

Bicycling and other green solutions aren't "just warm fuzzy ideas from the Mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to."

"This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms."

Maes is a Tea Party favourite, writes Osher, and, apparently, a certified nut case. The worldwide threat to personal freedoms that Maes was referring to was the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, which has been attracted members from 1,200 communities worldwide, including 600 in the U.S. (the poor misguided fools).

Osher quoted Maes as saying that "Some would argue this document that the mayors have signed is contradictory to our own Constitution."

Osher writes that Maes is also opposed to the mayor's bike-share program, saying it puts environmentalism above the rights of the average citizen.

Not sure how running a bike share program infringes on the basic rights of all Americans. I mean, can't you put a gun rack on a bicycle?

Maes gets my vote, for Moron of the Week.

National census doubles questions relating to cycling

It's easy to say that the new national census form has doubled the number of questions related to cycling, because up to now, the "long form" only asked one.

In a recent post, I lamented that with the demise of the mandatory long form, there would be no certain national counting of cyclists. The Statistics Canada people sent me the old long form and the new, voluntary National Household Survey, and indeed, there really was only one question on the old mandatory form: No. 47 -- How did this person usually get to work? The options were: Car, truck or van - as driver; Car, truck or van - as passenger; Public transit (bus, street-car, subway, light rail transit, commuter train ferry); Walked to work; Bicycle; Motorcycle, Taxicab; Other method.

On the new voluntary form, there are two questions: No. 47 -- Where the category for "Car, truck or van" is now parsed into sole occupant, two occupants or three or more; where the question about "Public transit" is now subdivided into four groups (Bus; Subway or elevated rail; Light rail, streetcar or commuter train; Passenger ferry); and where the "Motorcycle" category has had scooter or moped added; and No. 48, which has two parts: What time did this person usually leave home to go to work? and How many minutes did it usually take this person to get home from work?

Obviously, commute times are of interest, and esp. of interest to transportation planners across the country who will use this information to plan transportation options in their communities.

Too bad this form is voluntary. You can bet that infrastructure gurus are cursing the feds for the missed opportunity. Numbers win battles in council chambers.

Moron of the Week, #33

This is the first e-bike I've cited as a Moron of the Week, and I fear it won't be the last.

You were on Ottawa Street, as I was on Wednesday, heading towards the downtown and approaching the Homer Watson Boulevard intersection. I was stopped in the right lane, and you came up behind me and moved into the designated right turn lane and moved down that empty lane. passing the long line of traffic waiting in the through lane.

Your left-side shoulder check tipped me that you weren't planning a right turn, and sure enough, you had timed it perfectly to be at the intersection just as the green light signaled the through traffic to proceed. You dodged in front of the long line of waiting traffic and continued straight on through the intersection.

Now, this is not a case of me wishing I had thought of it first. If we're going to be treated seriously as traffic, cyclists really do have to act like traffic. Going straight through? Stay in that lane. Turning left? Use the left turn lane. 

By cheating, all this e-bike rider did was tick people off and add to the "bad press" that we cyclists already have to bear.

The legislation on e-bikes says that e-bikers have to behave like cyclists. It doesn't say they have to behave like ignorant cyclists. 

Moron of the week, #32

Toronto cyclists surely are among the most confident and most idiotic in the country.

Every time I come to T.O., I am struck by the diversity of riders, bikes and gear: from greying professors to soul-patched road warriors, comfort bikes to single speeds, wicker handlebar baskets to slick messenger bags. 

There are riders here who are the most assured riders in the country.

And there are the morons. Oh man, there are morons. Cyclists jumping green lights; cyclists running reds. (I watched both happen at one intersection. Pity they didn't bash into each other.) Cyclists who deserve the no-bell prize. Cyclists who are so bundled up that they can't turn to check their blind spots (and who must think the padding will save them in a collision).

How does it happen? Just because there are so many of them? Or is it because, being able to survive a few years of Toronto traffic, they presume invulnerability?

If that is the case, I would have no problem in awarding the "invulnerable" cyclists of Toronto, the Moron of the Week.

Moron of the Week, #31

Homer Watson and Manitou in Kitchener, on successive days within the last 10 days.

On two occasions, a cyclist passed a motorist in the right-hand-only turning lane, on the right side. On one occasion, it was after dark and the cyclist was wearing dark clothing and was lights-free.

The motorist who wrote to complain is cyclist-aware and says that she always checks for riders, but notes that some cyclists aren't doing themselves any favours by wearing black, going lightless and passing on the right in the wrong lane.

Ya think? How has natural selection missed these guys? Shouldn't their death-wish riding styles have weeded them out of the population by now?

Here's the right way to go straight through an intersection: pick the lane that goes straight through the intersection. Situate yourself in the right-hand portion of the lane. At a four-way stop, wait until your turn. At a signalized intersection, wait for the green light. Then ride straight through.

This goes against the grain of curb-huggers, who tend to follow the gutter even when it is clearly splitting away from the main road to a ramp or right-turn lane. BREAK THE HABIT. Or ride on the sidewalk and walk your bike through the crosswalk.

But anyone who rides along the right-turn-only lane and then decides to go straight through, and passes a turning motor vehicle to do so, surely is the Moron of the Week.

Moron of the Week, #30

OK, this is really four morons, in the space of 10 minutes!

Four different cyclists on King Street in downtown Kitchener, around 7:30 p.m. Dark as pitch. One on the road and three on the sidewalks. Not a light among the lot.

I mentioned this to one in passing, but he declined to stop and discuss the matter. I cringed as the one on the road was nearly run down by an overtaking motorist who noticed him and put on the brakes too close for my comfort.

Will Darwinism weed out the dumb cyclists? I think the cycling community needs every cycling voice it can muster, so I would just as soon have these morons alive, with lights.

If you know a cyclist who is dumb enough to ride at night without lights, I have a suggestion for a necessary Christmas gift: get them a light!

Moron of the week, #29

I've fallen behind on the moron-citing, but I rediscovered a lengthy email from Christina Mills of Waterloo describing her encounter with one earlier this month, which she calls MOTW.

Seems she was riding west on Columbia Street in Waterloo, when she saw a cyclist who was riding on the sidewalk, until he approached a pedestrian, when he would move off to the adjacent bicycle lane, and once past the ped, would swerve back onto the sidewalk. Mills caught up to the cyclist and a conversation ensued that went something like: "Just curious, why are you riding on the sidewalk when there's a bike lane right beside it?" MOTW replies: "I like the sidewalk." Mills asks, "Do you know it's illegal?" MOTW says, "Yes." Mills says, "Oh, do you also know it endangers pedestrians and gives cyclists a bad name?" MOTW simply shrugs.

So, she passes MOTW only to meet yet another moron going the wrong way on the bike lane she was in. His response to a near collision was to swerve up onto the sidewalk and narrowly miss a pedestrian.

Mills says "So many morons, so little apparent chance of getting through to them."

Moron of the Week, #28

I think it's me, this week, although I am willing share the blame with the cyclist who I offended.

It was almost 9 a.m. today on the sidewalk on Homer Watson Boulevard. I was walking and talking on a cellphone, when a cyclist whipped around from behind me, very fast, and passed me on the left.

As I have tried to do in such cases, I shouted after him: "Use your bell or yell."

The Lycra-clad cyclist turned around and, in a booming voice, replied, "I did. You're on a cellphone."

I shouted my apologies and he continued on, but I did wonder after: if he had yelled with that voice, how could I have not heard him? As well, how wise is it to bring road behaviour (fast riding) to sidewalks? And finally, how much should we depend on the yell-once-at-the-ped-and-then-I'm-blameless approach to cycling? On the lakes, the faster watercraft have to yield to the slower ones. That seems like a fair traffic model for sidewalks.

Nonetheless, I have sounded off enough about the walkie-talkie of sidewalk cellphone users that I believe I qualify for moron of the week, with a bit of moronic sticking to the sidewalk cyclist. 

Moron of the week, #27

Actually, two morons, although the motorist might have the edge here.

You were both travelling north Saturday around 1 p.m. on King Street in Kitchener, approaching the Frederick Street intersection. Construction has closed King north of this intersection, so traffic has to go either left or right. There is a right-turn-only lane and a combo straight-through/left turn lane on King Street at this intersection.

The motorist (large grey SUV) was in the combined straight through/left turn lane, not signalling, with a cyclist (adult, MTB, wearing his helmet) coming up behind him and beginning to pass him on the right, apprently intending to turn left.

As the light turned green, the SUV driver, instead of turning left, flicked on his right turn signal and began to turn across the right turn lane, directly into the cyclist. The cyclist yelled, "What do you think you are doing, a--hole?" The SUV driver stopped, the cyclist pulled around for his left turn and the SUV driver hit the gas to complete his right turn.

I believe I saw both motorist and cyclist shaking their heads in disbelief.

Now you might wonder why I would cite the cyclist as a potential moron. Well, I didn't see him signal. He pulled up into the blind spot of a motorist who wasn't signalling his intention and he insisted on his "right" to make his left turn across the line of travel of a big vehicle driven by a not totally aware motorist.

Yeah, the cyclist was most likely "in the right," but at the potential cost of being a statistic. How moronic is that? For the motorist, clearly this driver gave the most perfunctory of blind-spot checks, if he did one at all, and is a road hazard to himself and others.

In my reading of this, they both qualified to be morons of the week.